Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 Review (DAC)

[AdamG]

Let’s get back on topic shall we? No more burn in, lexicon, or unrelated off topic banter. These review threads are hard enough to follow as it is. I know this is a challenge for some, but try harder please. Even this “Stay on Topic” post is off topic. See what you made me do!

 

[Garrincha]

I want to understand you folks better, to you what is/are the deal breaker(s) here? Because I've seen a lot of circular arguments around burn-in and "manufacturer assurance" here:

- Is the price too high, regardless of performance (if this scored like 2dB higher than D90SE it is still not good p/p wise)?
- Is it the fact that its measurement stays in the "average" group, despite all the good subjective remarks elsewhere? (listeners experience did not reflect objective performance)
- Is it about the false measurement provided by the company? (if their measurement is misleading on purpose, then it can be understood as a fraud)
- Or is it about all the inconveniences and mumbo jumbos that go along with the product? (inconvenient way to setup firmware, have to wait on startup, "audiophile-grade" components, etc...)
- Or is it something else entirely? (Please point it out)

To me, it's obvious that the incorrect measurement from the company is very unforgiving. Assuming if nobody bought an unit and sent it to Amir or some other reputable figure of objective audio community, nobody would have known any better. Customers would have bought this and get tricked by a false painting of a great objective marvel.
If I use the established fact here that all DACs should sound and audibly behave the same after a certain threshold, then this DAC should be near or within the "fine" category for practical, daily performance (unless I got it wrong and some of its flaws are very audible?). Using the same argument again though, there's no good reason to buy this DAC if performance is all one cares about.

I conclude that even if there is something that cannot be measured about this DAC's audio performance, there is still mostly a boutique factor in this product. It's like a rarity, a prestige item to be collected more than an outstanding product.

On the itemized questions, Yes for no. 2), 3) and 4). On 1), if it really had measured better than the D90SE, I think everybody would have been happy. Since the D90Se is already audibly transparent, and no sonic improvement is to be expected, it still would have been an engineering achievment and progress in audio. If it would be worth it is everybodies own decision, but since the looks and built quality seem to be excellent, there definitely would be a market for it. But now with the known measurements, there is only a market for the ignorants...

 

[sam_adams]

I'm not surprised. Look at the mains inputs to the power supply PCB and where they run. Right down the left hand side to the voltage switch and primaries of the two txformers. That's a regulated +/- supply on the same PCB with only mm between mains and regulated low voltage. I don't like that.

Not only have they made the mistake of running mains traces on the PCB for the power supply there is a serious error with regards to the EGC on the chassis. It apparently connects through the PS PCB to one of the standoffs underneath—from what can be seen.

There also seems to be two versions of this device with different PS boards:

The silver version seems to match the description here. There appears to be some handwork on the silver version PS PCB, also, near the point where the mains connection comes into the board. The two electrolytic caps look like they were soldered on afterwards.

Most of the 'engineering' budget seems to have been spent on overworking the power supplies—specifically the secondary one—in an attempt to, ". . . providing pure and sufficient energy for each part of the circuit.", without realizing the egregious mistake made in the main one. SiC Schottky diodes and MOSFET power transistors won't fix noise coupled from the mains running on the PS PCB.

The secondary power supply would be absolutely unnecessary if they had designed a proper mains PS. Those Nesscap super caps, are also mounted on that board contrary to manufacturer recommendations. ". . . A total of 18 independent regulators have been used." in an attempt, I suppose, to clean up the prior errors.

This, "The primary and secondary windings are made of expensive OCC-plated silver. Because of the skin effect of signal," is utter nonsense in this situation. If this really is made with this wire type, it's a total waste of money. The same type of wire is used in the power jumpers between boards as if it were going to impart some special properties to the DC.

@amirm, noticed what appeared to be saturation in the output signal effecting SINAD which could only be attributed to the use of the, "The analog output stage of DA005 uses a newly designed fully discrete circuit.". Unfortunately—for us—there doesn't seem to be anyone brave enough to pry that cover off of that area of the mainboard to see what's underneath. However, since the measurements are showing the poor performance of said output stage, it seems like more attention should have been focussed there instead of on more PS regulators for the two DACs.

 

[tw 2022]

the price alone makes me think: waste of time and money for an expensive "ego boost " toy...

 

[AudioSceptic]

I can’t imagine how that could be the case—that would essentially render all efforts to achieve digital resolutions above 44.1/16 pointless. I recognize that there are some extremists who make such claims, just as there are vinyl extremists on some other side of the spectrum who claim that a phono cartridge can provide more “detail” than a DAC.

And although I do believe that there is a threshold of resolution beyond which the human ear can discern (especially the ones beyond the fifth decade), I believe that there are plenty of folks who can hear the difference between a standard CD and a 96khz/24 bit file, if anything based on dynamic range alone. I can’t claim that I can personally without risking the hypocrisy of the anecdote, but I’m fairly sure there is some robust data supporting this—and now you made me go seek it out!

Repeating this here as it makes more sense than replying to myself!
There's a thread here <https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/cd-vs-hi-res.25979/page-7>. See if you think it's worth adding to that.

 

[srkbear]

Let’s get back on topic shall we? No more burn in, lexicon, or unrelated off topic banter. These review threads are hard enough to follow as it is. I know this is a challenge for some, but try harder please. Even this “Stay on Topic” post is off topic. See what you made me do!

Sorry! I hear you.

 

[AudioEd]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 ES9038 based stereo DAC. It was kindly purchased new and drop shipped to me. It costs US $3,299.
View attachment 207311

At 12 Kg/26 pounds, this is one of the heaviest DACs I have tested. Fit and finish is excellent as you can see in the above picture. That carries to the chunky metal remote:

View attachment 207312

When I plugged the unit in, Windows did not load the class driver for it which means it is not class compliant. I could not find a driver online but a flash drive as shown above comes with an ASIO driver. The internal USB interface is the common but old Amanero. Driver installed but the ASIO driver would not function. The remote was not functional either. I saw a screw driver in the box which I assume is to open its back to put in batteries. What a pain.

When I powered the unit, it started to count down tell me to wait! I glanced at the main board and it seems to have a bunch of supercaps or batteries in that that it must be charging. Anyway, I waited the two minutes for it to get ready.

Musetec MH-DA005 Measurements
View attachment 207314

I couldn't believe these results. Company spec is 10x lower distortion:
View attachment 207315
I changed inputs and measured RCA output:

View attachment 207316

Going with this, performance is unacceptable at any price level these days let alone wht MH-DA005 costs:
View attachment 207317

I suspected the output stage may be saturating so ran a sweep:
View attachment 207318

That is it. We are now very close to rated spec (110 dB vs 114 dB spec) but we can only get there at 1.5 volt output. This is bad.

News gets worse with IMD two-tones:
View attachment 207319

So we not only have output saturation we saw before, but mother of all "ESS DAC IMD hump!" At lower outputs performance drops to that of a $9 phone dongle!

Not all news is bad. Dynamic range for example is excellent:

View attachment 207320

Linearity is perfect:
View attachment 207321

Just when you settle in, here comes the jitter test:
View attachment 207322

There is a DPLL bandwidth setting but that could help internally generated noise sources above. But even if they do, none of the settings should be this bad.

Without the remote working, I could not change filters. Fortunately the default one is what you expect:
View attachment 207323

Multitone test shows rising distortion with frequency which is again disappointing:
View attachment 207324

This in turn shows up in THD+N vs frequency:

View attachment 207325

Conclusions
So easy to fall in the trap of going by looks, price and written specs (as opposed to proper measurements). While doing a few things right, there is a lot wrong with design of MH-DA005. They have an excellent core as far as DAC chip is concerned, but they poorly implement the companion circuits. Instead of focusing to get the basics right, focus seems to be elsewhere (battery bank and such). A shame since the packaging is very nice.

I cannot recommend the Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005. If someone thinks this sample is broken, then get the company to produce the above measurements and I will happy to revisit.

---------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

I'm really surprised by this review. I've always relied upon Amir's reviews and have even bought equipment based on them. Having owned a Chord Dave DAC, Topping D90SE, Holo Audio May KTE and the Musetec MH-DA005 and partnered with Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2, I can honestly say that, as far as the listening experience is concerned, the Musetec is second only to the Holo May with both sounding better than the Chord Dave or Topping DAC's. Perhaps Amir just got hold of an atypical model?

 

[Garrincha]

I'm really surprised by this review. I've always relied upon Amir's reviews and have even bought equipment based on them. Having owned a Chord Dave DAC, Topping D90SE, Holo Audio May KTE and the Musetec MH-DA005 and partnered with Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2, I can honestly say that, as far as the listening experience is concerned, the Musetec is second only to the Holo May with both sounding better than the Chord Dave or Topping DAC's. Perhaps Amir just got hold of an atypical model?

Perhaps you should make reasonable statements? How many times does it have to be pointed out that a state of the art dac has no proper sound? You just provide a list of several very costly dacs and then throw out wild guesses about their sound quality. Yeah the 50k$ MSB Dac (https://almaaudio.com/products/msb-the-reference-dac, which funnily looks quite similar to the $500 Bluesound Note https://www.bluesound.com/products/node/) sounds even better! You can go on and burn your money, but please, spare us with your dac sound quality nonsense.

 

[srkbear]

I'm really surprised by this review. I've always relied upon Amir's reviews and have even bought equipment based on them. Having owned a Chord Dave DAC, Topping D90SE, Holo Audio May KTE and the Musetec MH-DA005 and partnered with Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2, I can honestly say that, as far as the listening experience is concerned, the Musetec is second only to the Holo May with both sounding better than the Chord Dave or Topping DAC's. Perhaps Amir just got hold of an atypical model?

Here we go again. Please go back and review prior comments (and perhaps the educational section offered to you elsewhere on ASR pertaining to the technology behind DACs) to comprehend that DACs shouldn’t have a “sound”—they should be transparent and precise and devoid of any artificial coloration of the sound. They differ only in how much noise or distortion they add to the original master, primarily due to error.

The only valid explanation for your perception that one DAC “sounds better” than another, assuming that both measure satisfactorily within the range of human hearing, would be how its implemented in your system—how much voltage it is outputting to your amp, what tonal characteristics your amp is contributing to the sound, what headphones or speakers you’re using, etc. Without proper controls of these factors (which is exceedingly hard to achieve), you’re operating in a space of endless chaos and faulty assumptions.

Any other qualitative attributes you’re assigning to these comparisons arise solely from the cognitive dissonance we’re all susceptible to—and this latter factor is how folks end up spending a fortune in wasted cash and mental resources deciding on the component in their setups that arguably warrants the least expenditure and effort.

We waste endless pages on these reviews trying to redirect folks away from this tendency to apply analog descriptors to a device that exists in the digital realm. If you refuse to acquiesce to the science behind digital audio, you’re going to experience a ton of frustration on this forum, as will the rest of us.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I'm really surprised by this review. I've always relied upon Amir's reviews and have even bought equipment based on them. Having owned a Chord Dave DAC, Topping D90SE, Holo Audio May KTE and the Musetec MH-DA005 and partnered with Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2, I can honestly say that, as far as the listening experience is concerned, the Musetec is second only to the Holo May with both sounding better than the Chord Dave or Topping DAC's. Perhaps Amir just got hold of an atypical model?

People will probably bet big money that you won’t be able to distinguish any of the DACs in a controlled blind listening test.

Every alleged sound difference you perceive today is due to unconscious bias of a sighted test. No human is immune to that. Therefore only ABX Tests are meaningful.

There is an ABX tool, which puts out a protocol, so you can check for yourself. It will be insightful for you and might save you a lot of money in your future audio purchases.

Up to you.

 

[srkbear]

People will probably bet big money that you won’t be able to distinguish any of the DACs in a controlled blind listening test.

Every alleged sound difference you perceive today is due to unconscious bias of a sighted test. No human is immune to that. Therefore only ABX Tests are meaningful.

There is an ABX tool. Which puts out a protocol, there you can check for yourself. It will be insightful and might save you a lot of money in your future audio purchases.

Up to you.

Wouldn’t it have been great if he’d availed himself of that before he shelled out a fortune on a Chord DAVE, a Holo May, and this tragic box of screws? I wish I had his money back for myself!

 

[srkbear]

I'm really surprised by this review. I've always relied upon Amir's reviews and have even bought equipment based on them. Having owned a Chord Dave DAC, Topping D90SE, Holo Audio May KTE and the Musetec MH-DA005 and partnered with Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2, I can honestly say that, as far as the listening experience is concerned, the Musetec is second only to the Holo May with both sounding better than the Chord Dave or Topping DAC's. Perhaps Amir just got hold of an atypical model?

If you’re really open to some pragmatic guidance on this issue, start paying attention to the differing output voltages between your DACs when making comparisons. Are you using XLR or RCA connectors to your amp? It’s been well-described that “louder” is often perceived as “better”. I was once thrown off by this when deciding between my Topping D90se and a Gustard x26 pro—I ultimately went with the right DAC (the Topping, which costs nearly half as much), but for the wrong reason. The Topping outputs 5.4 V via XLR, while the Gustard was a shade under 5 volts.

That difference led to the Topping being noticeably louder at equal volume settings on my amp—I had to turn my amp’s volume pot up from nine o’clock to almost one o’clock to get the Gustard to sound as “good” as the Topping, and as soon as my amp was kicked up that high I was just a shade away from clipping at any higher volumes. This led my ears (and brain) to perceive the Topping as “better”.

In my case it was the better choice financially (sonically the two should be indistinguishable). But of course you can imagine how the circumstances could have easily gone the other way…

 

[Madlop26]

I'm really surprised by this review. I've always relied upon Amir's reviews and have even bought equipment based on them. Having owned a Chord Dave DAC, Topping D90SE, Holo Audio May KTE and the Musetec MH-DA005 and partnered with Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2, I can honestly say that, as far as the listening experience is concerned, the Musetec is second only to the Holo May with both sounding better than the Chord Dave or Topping DAC's. Perhaps Amir just got hold of an atypical model?

I know you are new here, but if you want to be considered serious you have to provide an objective proof what you are saying is true, this audio science after all, blind testing explaining the methodology will suffice.

 

[SegaCD]

I am well aware of that unfortunate trend which has gotten hold in mass market products with some devices shipped with nothing but a bootloader! This DAC is not one of those. This is a very low volume device sold at very high price. While typical smart devices have massive amount of software so huge potential for bugs, etc., whereas this is a simple device and I expect it to come to me in working condition. It is not like I am complaining about functionality of the UI, etc. that is software intensive. This is electrical performance I am measuring.

Yep, totally understood. Besides the extra effort involved, I can understand that, from your perspective, a bad FW update may also result in a bricked unit, ending in you & the manufacturer doing finger pointing on fault and nobody wants to have to do that over device at this price range that you don't intend to keep.

The Musetec group should have fully vetted the base FW out before leaving the facilities and you're right that, at this price point, they probably could have spared expense to recall the relatively small batch of units from stock if such a big bug was noted. I guess what I'm saying is day zero FW updates are common and shouldn't be shied away from performing particularly if trying to capture the true up-to-date performance of a device. The FW updates exist solely because bugs were found or features were added/expanded. Its not particularly fair to the manufacturer to run outdated FW regardless. Making sure FW is up to date (and noting FW version) should be part of the criteria to measure modern equipment. Hell, the FW update itself should be part of the review if it's not intuitive like this was! It's a little "old man yells at clouds" to argue otherwise, if you know what I mean.

I have now made my point and will slide back into the bushes whence I came...

 

[fatoldgit]

We waste endless pages on these reviews trying to redirect folks away from this tendency to apply analog descriptors to a device that exists in the digital realm. If you refuse to acquiesce to the science behind digital audio, you’re going to experience a ton of frustration on this forum, as will the rest of us.

While firmly in the ASR camp, I would respectively suggest that a DAC is both a digital and analogue device (as well as a power conditioner).

So its fitting to ascribe analogue descriptions given that some DAC output stages (i.e. the bit that outputs an analogue signal) could be op-amp based, discreet and other combo's. (which in the case of this DAC exhibits overload in the analogue domain... which causes distortion that some end users might actually like... hence the positive subjective reviews)

Peter

 

[srkbear]

Yep, totally understood. Besides the extra effort involved, I can understand that, from your perspective, a bad FW update may also result in a bricked unit, ending in you & the manufacturer doing finger pointing on fault and nobody wants to have to do that over device at this price range that you don't intend to keep.

The Musetec group should have fully vetted the base FW out before leaving the facilities and you're right that, at this price point, they probably could have spared expense to recall units if such a big bug was noted, but I guess what I'm saying is day zero FW updates are common and shouldn't be shied away from performing particularly if trying to capture the true up-to-date performance of a device. Making sure FW is up to date should be part of the criteria to measure modern equipment. It's a little "old man yells at clouds" to argue otherwise, if you know what I mean.

I have now made my point and will slide back into the bushes whence I came...

I just went through the tedious process of downloading the firmware package and unzipping it, and I searched top to bottom for any release notes. There were only installation instructions. So despite all this hand wringing about the firmware update not being confirmed prior to Amir’s tests, we have no evidence that this firmware release flashes anything to the device that would impact performance or sound. As far as we know it might have been a minor tweak to the GUI.

But if it was an update transformative enough to turn this mess into something acceptable for any price range, then one must wonder about the quality control of this manufacturer—that price tag was decided upon based on its performance at launch. So now can we put this bugaboo to rest?

 

[srkbear]

While firmly in the ASR camp, I would respectively suggest that a DAC is both a digital and analogue device (as well as a power conditioner).

So its fitting to ascribe analogue descriptions given that some DAC output stages (i.e. the bit that outputs an analogue signal) could be op-amp based, discreet and other combo's. (which in the case of this DAC exhibits overload in the analogue domain... which causes distortion that some end users might actually like... hence the positive subjective reviews)

Peter

I must say I respectfully and strongly disagree. First of all, a “power conditioner”? A DAC? Elaborate please. Second, no well-designed DAC, particularly one with this price tag, should be baking in distortion prior to the amplification stage, no matter how pleasing it may be to some people.

It’s perfectly fine that some folks enjoy the “musical” distortions that can be brought about at analog stages such as tubes or vinyl, or even via artificial tube modeling features offered by some DSPs. But I know of no serious audiophile, musician or designer who considers digital distortion aspirational or pleasant (ever heard a guitarist say they love the sound of transistors clipping?)—and even if they did, the job of the DAC is to convert a digital sample back to an analog waveform as faithfully as it possibly can. It’s then each listener’s prerogative to add colorations or distortions to suit their individual tastes. I can’t imagine you believing otherwise, really?

 

[SegaCD]

I just went through the tedious process to download the firmware package and unzip it, and I searched top to bottom for any release notes. There were only installation instructions. So despite all this hand wringing about the firmware update not being confirmed prior to Amir’s tests, we have no evidence that this firmware release flashes anything to the device that would impact performance or sound. As far as we know it might have been a minor tweak to the GUI.

But if it was an update transformative enough to turn this mess into something acceptable for any price range, then one must wonder about the quality control of this manufacturer—that price tag was decided upon based on its performance at launch. So now can we put this bugaboo to rest?

I totally get it and I don't own this device and have no idea if the firmware fixes any performance bugs at all, but if a FW update exists, then a bug was identified and/or a feature was added. That's a given.

It's not completely fair to the manufacturer or consumer if devices are not evaluated with the manufacturers' patches/additions applied. Not every manufacturer should require a liaison on here prepped to say "Woah, wait, this new FW update fixed that issue, could you update & redo it?" Then we don't have to speculate about what could have actually been fixed or not if the device was updated.

That's all.

Also, in case this isn't clear, I personally wouldn't touch this device with a 10 foot pole especially without safety certs (which, obviously, can not be changed with a FW update), but I'm just explaining this to encourage test process improvements.

 

[AudioEd]

Ok, I don't quite appreciate the hostile tone of some here. What happened to civility? I understand comments like DAC's shouldn't have any sound, etc. I have a degree in electronics so not I'm not naïve. Surely at the end of the day, we buy equipment not for the specs alone but because we listen to it and derive please from such experiences. I would hazard a guess that very few here have actually seen let alone tried the Musetec DAC. It does has some foibles to be sure but all I'm saying is that compared to other gear I've used (hesitant to used the word listened to when talking about DAC's lest I get shot down again), the Musetec is fine. Forget to mention I also own an RME ADI-2 Pro FS B and the Musetec beats that for me too.

 

[srkbear]

Ok, I don't quite appreciate the hostile tone of some here. What happened to civility? I understand comments like DAC's shouldn't have any sound, etc. I have a degree in electronics so not I'm not naïve. Surely at the end of the day, we buy equipment not for the specs alone but because we listen to it and derive please from such experiences. I would hazard a guess that very few here have actually seen let alone tried the Musetec DAC. It does has some foibles to be sure but all I'm saying is that compared to other gear I've used (hesitant to used the word listened to when talking about DAC's lest I get shot down again), the Musetec is fine. Forget to mention I also own an RME ADI-2 Pro FS B and the Musetec beats that for me too.

First of all, no one, certainly not myself, is intending anything personal here. If you heard that in my comments, I apologize. I only ask you to be aware that this is already a 15 page thread, and we’ve already addressed countless similar claims as the ones you raised in your post. Additionally, please be mindful of what you’re insinuating when you suggest that Amir may have mistakenly tested a defective DAC when performing his review. I think he’s earned the right not to be accused of ineptitude to that degree.

It was that comment that ruffled my feathers enough to call you on it, along with what I made up as you reeling off a string of exorbitantly-priced gear you’ve collected, in the service of you attributing your buying power as a
measure of your virtues as a tastemaker. If I misrepresented your intentions, I offer my amends.